As stated in the first part of this essay, Hinduism offers four paths, or yogas, each made for a different personality type.

For the primarily reflective individual, jnana yoga is made “to convince the thinker that she is more than her finite self” (Smith, 29). An intuitive combination of reason and spirituality, it claims to “turn the knower into that which she forms.”

"The World’s Religions", by Huston Smith, is often considered a classic on religious beliefs around the world. It is also very secular in perspective. With the starting assumption that all religions are essentially the same or that they lead inevitably to the same result, he proceeds to connect the first religion in the book, Hinduism, to all other religions (especially, it seems, Christianity). The book itself is very informative, offering great and extensive information on the various beliefs, worship methods and metaphysics of Hinduism.

One
grain
of sand
not
a single
angle
on its
face
minute creatures
could see through it
like glass.
 
It dropt
from my hand
and disappeared into anonymity
amidst innumerable grains of gold.
It was unique, perhaps, but now it is only
an atom on a single rippling sheet
tossed by the whim of the waves
pounded, shaped and swept
thro' unimaginable depths of gloom
then winding around the feet of stony, towering cliffs
barren but nearer the sun

Epistemology is a part of philosophy that deals with knowledge and how we know our knowledge – or, as Francis Schaeffer puts in, “how we know, and how we know we know.” If you think about it, there are two ways to know things. You either absorb it through your surroundings by watching, listening, reading, etc. or you find it out on your own via cognitive reasoning skills. In logic these are referred to as induction and deduction.

Can science prove God’s existence? Absolutely not. Just take a look at the scientific method. A scientist’s job is to experiment to constantly confirm or deny their formulated hypothesis or theory. The theory itself is (or should be) based on observable facts and/or previous experimental data, but it could still be wrong. There can always be another way to interpret the data. And if you think about it, to say that a theory is true because it is confirmed by experimental data is a logical fallacy.

One of the biggest factors in creation science, other than creation and the Fall, is the Great Flood. Such an incredible catastrophe would have an incredible affect on much of science, even such subjects as pathology and paleoclimatology (the study of earth’s past climates). Weather, genetics and geology would never be the same. Neither would man or his salvation. “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,” said Jesus Christ in John 10:9. Jesus is the Ark by which we may be saved today.

According to mainstream science, no debate exists between evolution and creation. This is because science is defined as being inherently Naturalistic – a view held by atheists and Intelligent Design proponents alike. Naturalism, the belief that physical matter is all that exists, is the source of evolution and millions of years. If this is the case, that science is Naturalistic by its very nature, we would expect current research to confirm this. One area of rapidly expanding research today is marine science.

In Part 2a of this essay, the very oft-touted 'evidence' of radiometric dating in defense of an old earth was discussed. The second major evidence is distant starlight. As we can see billions of lightyears out into space, secularists argue that the light should take billions of years to get here. There are two major theories that can explain this problem, however. Both are based on the Theory of Relativity.

I just realized how long this essay is, so I felt that I should split it into two parts. This will discuss radioactive dating, while 2b will discuss distant starlight and various young earth evidences.
____________________________________________________________
It is clear that an honest reader of Scripture will find no hint of evidence towards millions of years. Is the Christian faith, then, based on blind faith? Is it rational to believe in 6,000 years when scientists, more often than not, say 4.5 billion?

A subject even more controversial than evolution is the age of the earth. While it is easy to laugh at a theory that declares all humans came from fish, billions of years just sounds so much more scientific.